Good question...

...Well, did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? Another contradiction?!

This was a GREAT question because it highlights one of the MAIN sources of 'mistaken contradictions'--morphological similarity.

What this means is that when two authors use the SAME word-form, somebody decides that the two different authors meant the SAME word-meaning. Let's look at the passages in question:

• Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take ("ktaomai") no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. (Matthew 10.9-10)
  

• These were his instructions: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey except a staff -- no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. (Mark 6.8)
  

• He told them: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey -- no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9.3)

At the surface, the 'contradiction' seems obvious: Matthew and Luke SEEM to agree that Jesus prohibits the disciples from taking a staff, while Mark SEEMS to allow them to take one...At first blush--assuming all the 'takes' mean the same thing(!)--SOMEBODY must be wrong!

So, we have two sets of contradictions here: Matthew vs. Mark (different word forms for 'take'), and Luke vs. Mark (same word forms for 'take').

So, let's try to determine what those word-forms mean for the authors:

• Matthew uses the word 'ktaomai', meaning 'acquire' (a logistics function).
  

  This is NOT Matthew's word for 'financial purchase'. He uses the term 'agorazo' for that (a term also sometimes used by Luke, by the way). For example,

  As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy ("agorazo") themselves some food." (14.15)
  

  "`No,' they replied, `there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy ("agorazo") some for yourselves.' 10 "But while they were on their way to buy ("agorazo") the oil, the bridegroom arrived. (25.9-10)
  

  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy ("agorazo") the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. (27.6-7)

  Matthew does not use this "purchase/procure" word, but the more general one for 'locate and obtain'. Accordingly, the prohibition in Matthew is against HUNTING FOR and securing/obtaining a staff (presumably because of the urgency and haste of the trip--as indicated in all versions; much of this saying probably would have been standard prophetic hyperbole--perhaps indicated by the strong 'take nothing' in some of the passages--since most of them would have already had walking sticks).
  

• Mark uses the word 'airo' which is a MUCH broader word, generally indicating 'pick up and carry' (physically, as in luggage/baggage), as in other passages in Mark:

  Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take ("airo") your mat and walk'? (2.9) [the notion is 'pick it up off the ground and carry it away']
  

  On hearing of this, John's disciples came and took ('airo') his body and laid it in a tomb. (6.29) [the notion is 'lifted the dead body and carried it out']
  

  "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself ('airo') into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. (11.23) [the notion is 'pick yourself up and carry yourself away'!]
  

  Let no one in the field go back to get ('airo') his cloak. (13.16) [the notion is 'retrieve it']

  So, Mark is specifically ALLOWING them to 'pick up and physically carry' their walking staff (presumably the one they would each probably have already)
  

• Luke seems to be dependent on Matthew here--as evidenced by the grammatical construction, and seems to have used a broader word ('airo') for Matthew's tighter 'acquire' ('ktaomai'). Luke is very similar to Matthew--the verbs in both passages are imperatives (vs. Mark's use of a subordinate construction and subjunctive mood). But Luke CANNOT use Matthew's verb (ktaomai) in this passage, because 'ktaomai' means something DIFFERENT for Luke (and presumably his readers). Ktaomai in Luke is focused more on "PURCHASED/Financially OWNED things". For example,

  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get (ktaomai).' (18.12) [the notion is of financial income.]
  

  (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought (ktaomai) a field; (Acts 1.18) [the notion is specifically that of 'purchase'. Notice too that Luke uses ktaomai, but Matthew uses 'agorazo' for the same act in his account of the purchase!]
  

  Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy (ktaomai) the gift of God with money! (Acts 8.20) [the notion is clearly that of purchase.]
  

  Then the commander said, "I had to pay (ktaomai) a big price for my citizenship." (Acts 22.28) [the notion is clearly a financial transaction.]

  [The only possible exception is Luke 21.19 where the sense is 'win', which has some transactional notion in it, of course].
  

  So, for Luke, it would make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for his readers to 'see' Jesus forbid the disciples to "buy money" (!)...a very misleading and only marginally coherent notion.
  

  What this means is that Luke HAD TO find ANOTHER, DIFFERENT word that could convey 'locate and acquire' OTHER THAN Matthew's word ktaomai.
  

  Luke selects 'airo', a more general term.
  

• And just as 'ktaomai' did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew; so also the word 'airo' DID NOT (often) MEAN the same for Luke and Mark! (which dissipates the contradiction).
  

  That Luke probably did NOT mean the same sense of 'airo' as Mark did (removing the problem) is suggested by a similar issue in Luke 10.4. In that passage--the sending of the 70--Luke uses the verb "bastazo" (which has a narrower range than airo) which for Luke means 'bear, carry' [== the same sense as Mark's 'airo'].
  

  Mark uses airo 21 times for physical 'picking something up to move', and uses bastazo only once--referring to a man already in the PROCESS OF CARRYING a pitcher.
  

  One interesting piece of comparative data is that in ONE description of the 'taking up and carrying the cross', Mark uses airo (8.34; 10.21), but Luke uses bastazo (14.27). What this strongly argues for is that Luke's bastazo = Mark's airo (at least sometimes). These words still overlap some, but it is sufficient for our purpose to show that they generally diverge.
  

  In other cases Mark's airo is the SAME as Luke's airo. But this identical-usage ONLY OCCURS in the Triple Tradition--passages which are shared by ALL three of the synoptic writers:
  

  • the Healing of the Paralytic [Mt 9.1-8; Mr 2.1-12; Lk 5.17-26]
    

  • The Parable of the Sower and The Seed, (and the explanation, except Matthew uses the word for 'seize') [Matt 13.12,18-23; Mr 4.15-25; Lk 8.12-18]
    

  • the Taking up of the Fragments [Mt 14.20; Mr 6.43; Lk 9.17]
    

  • Take up the Cross [Mt 16.24; Mr 8.34; 10.21; Lk 9.23]
    

  Although the word airo is used by both Luke and Mark in these passages, in the Triple Tradition it is often understood that the gospel writers did not have as much flexibility in redactional word-choice-changes as they might have had in other sections. So, similarities in word choices in the TT would not indicate shared semantic 'preferences' but in shared source-stock of the accounts.
  

• So, can Luke's airo be used in the sense of Matthew's ktaomai (='acquire')? If it can, then the issue is resolved, since we know that Mark's airo is NOT the same as Matthew's ktaomai, and that Mark's airo is closer to Luke's bastazo that to Luke's airo. So, the last piece of the puzzle is why Luke used airo in 9.3. We know why he didn't use ktaomai (it would have misled his readers) and we know why he didn't use bastzao (because Matt and hence Luke, was not talking about Picking up and CARRYING luggage--an immediate act, but about LOCATING/ACQUIRING/SECURING something--taking a longer period of time to do, delaying the mission).
  

  Well, airo is CERTAINLY used that way in Luke 17.31 ("On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. "). Notice that the SAME MOTIF of HIGH-URGENCY is present; under the extreme urgency, no one should 'take the time to collect materials for a journey--leave with WHAT YOU HAVE!'.
  

  [There are other places in Luke where airo is used of acquire-without-procure...It is also used in Luke 6.29 of those that 'seize' one's cloak (definitely acquire, without purchase or luggage-carrying). Other 'seize' passages are 11.22, 52; 19.24, 26; 23.18. Passages in which acquire-without-purchase is present is 19.21,22.]
  

1. In Matthew, Jesus tells them to not 'make preparations'--the trip is too urgent to 'acquire belongings for the trip' (cf. Luke 17.31). No hesitation--start NOW with what you already have at your disposal!
   

2. In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!
   

3. In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form. So Matthew's ktaomai equals Luke's airo (in this and in other passages), and Mark's airo equals Luke's bastazo (in this and other passages).
   

[I might also point out that the resolution of this issue provides some support for the neo-Griesbachian hypothesis--that Luke uses Matthew, but did NOT use Mark. It is easy to see from the above argumentation how the phenomena in Luke is derived from Matthew--the grammatical construction is identical, only the verb is changed due to different usages. But IF Luke had had MARK in front of him as well, then Luke would probably have found another way to say it--simply to avoid the appearance of such an obvious conflict in the verb forms. The fact that the problem even surfaces--coupled with the substantial similarity between Luke and Matthew--is evidence that Luke did NOT have a finished text of Mark in front of him.]

So, the morphological similarity of the words, in this case, would have misled interpreters if they did not pay attention to the usage patterns of the authors. As it stands, there is no disagreement between the accounts--in fact, they strangely appear to be saying the say exact thing--"Hurry up and get moving!".

Hope this helps,
glenn miller

[nostaff.html]